Agenda item

Variation of condition 3 (re. deliveries) of planning permission ref. 36999/T/93/0878 (allowed at appeal under ref. 94/236865) and dated 10 May 1995 for the removal of condition 12 (re. opening hours) of planning permission ref. 36999E/89/1214 and dated 1 May 1990 for the erection of a District Shopping Centre incorporating a retail store of 6228sqm gross floorspace with 725 car parking spaces, 12 small shop units with residential accommodation over, a covered mall, a doctor's surgery, a public house, a restaurant, changing facilities, a meeting hall, public convenience, a petrol filling station, a children's play area, an associated car parking area, a service yard and landscaping on land at Willow Tree Lane/Glencoe Road/Jolly's Lane, Hayes.

 

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Variation of condition 3 (re. deliveries) of planning permission ref. 36999/T/93/0878 (allowed at appeal under ref. 94/236865) and dated 10 May 1995 for the removal of condition 12 (re. opening hours) of planning permission ref. 36999E/89/1214 and dated 1 May 1990 for the erection of a District Shopping Centre incorporating a retail store of 6228sqm gross floorspace with 725 car parking spaces, 12 small shop units with residential accommodation over, a covered mall, a doctor's surgery, a public house, a restaurant, changing facilities, a meeting hall, public convenience, a petrol filling station, a children's play area, an associated car parking area, a service yard and landscaping on land at Willow Tree Lane/Glencoe Road/Jolly's Lane, Hayes.

 

The application proposed to amend the condition wording to allow for one delivery to take place between the hours of 09:00 and 10:00 on a Sunday, which the current wording of the condition prohibited.

 

The applicant was proposing to deliver to the front of the store prior to the store opening and delivering to the front of the store would make it quicker to unload perishable goods. This would also reduce the potential noise impacts upon neighbouring residents.

 

The proposal for one delivery between 09:00 and 10:00 on a Sunday was not considered to result in a significant increase in noise, given that this was one delivery and it was set in a location which was at least 34 metres from a neighbouring property. Unlike the existing service and delivery yard there would be a negligible impact upon air quality and the highways network. The application was recommended for approval.

 

The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·       The petitioner lived on Telford Way

·       There was a longstanding issue with pollution, noise and diesel fumes coming into the garden

·       There had been a previous application in 2018 which was refused

·       Tesco were currently allowing people into the store at 09:00 before the tills opened at 10:00. Therefore, there could be cars in the car park when the lorry attempted to deliver

·       The lorries were noisy and cannot reverse so they would have to drive nearer to the flats in order to exit the car park

·       The petitioner could not use their garden whilst deliveries took place

·       The petitioner stated that they had evidence of Tesco making a delivery on a Sunday and on a Bank Holiday, and this had been submitted to officers

·       Permission for one delivery would lead to more deliveries

·       As this application sought to deliver to the front of the store, the petitioner questioned how a delivery vehicle would manoeuvre around the mini roundabout

·       The petitioner had emailed the manager of Tesco on numerous occasions

·       Some local residents had moved away from the area as a result of this

·       The local MP, John McDonnell, had been engaged on this issue

 

Members asked the petitioner if Tesco had engaged with residents over this proposal. The petitioner confirmed that they had initiated some engagement along with John McDonnell MP.

 

Members asked if the petitioner had contacted their local Ward Councillors and suggested they do so if they had already.

 

Members asked if the petitioner had moved to the area before the Tesco store was built. The petitioner moved in after the store was built but the store had subsequently expanded. However, the loading bay was the same size.

 

The agent attended and addressed the Committee, making the following points:

·       The agent thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address them

·       The proposal sought permission for a single delivery to take place between 09:00 and 10:00 on Sunday mornings

·       The application sought to amend an existing planning condition which currently prohibited deliveries on Sundays

·       The existing delivery arrangements meant that it was not possible for Tesco to adequately stock the store with fresh produce for Sunday trading, which was one of the busiest days of the week with the store open between 10:00 and 16:00

·       This meant that produce available to customers on Sundays and early Monday mornings were picked from the last Saturday delivery

·       This impacted on Tesco's ability to provide a full range of fresh goods to local residents. This also had implications for staffing and on the store’s performance

·       The principal planning consideration for this application related to the potential impact of the proposals on residential amenity. Tesco were aware of local residents’ concerns and the sensitivities relating to the potential noise impact of service vehicles accessing the service yard via the access road to the rear of the properties on Telford Way

·       This was also a key consideration of the previously refused application

·       To ensure that there was no impact on the properties in Telford Way arising from delivery vehicle movements, Tesco proposed to bring a single delivery to the front door, which was well away from those noise sensitive properties

·       The delivery would take place before Sunday opening, meaning that there would be no conflict with customer vehicles

·       Tesco were confident, and had tracked, that the delivery vehicle can enter the site past the roundabout, undertake a turning manoeuvre outside the existing retail units beyond the store and come back around and park before unloading into the front door

·       A noise assessment accompanied the application and assessed the real-world effects of a delivery at 09:00 on a Sunday

·       The delivery would take about half an hour to be offloaded, and the proposals would not result in any significant negative impact on residential amenity, especially on the flats above. This position was accepted by the Council's Environmental Health Officer

 

Members asked and the agent confirmed that the reason they were proposing to have the delivery to the front of the store and not to the loading bay was to mitigate noise problems to local residents of the service road.

 

The agent further noted that a previous application for Sunday deliveries had been refused and that decision was upheld at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate. Therefore, Tesco had sought an alternative.

 

Members asked about contingencies, suggesting that a one-hour slot was a short time frame for a delivery vehicle to arrive, park, unload and exit.

 

There would be a strict restriction on the permission that set out that the delivery can only take place between 09:00 and 10:00. If it arrived after that period, it would not be able to deliver. The Local Authority would be within its rights to undertake enforcement action against Tesco.

 

Members asked what interactions had taken place with residents. The agent had not directly interacted with residents.

 

The agent confirmed that this application was for the purpose of ensuring a full range of goods as part of business needs.

 

Membrs highlighted the common practise no Sundays of stores allowing customers in prior to the tills opening, and asked if that took place here. The agent said they were not aware of this happening here. The procedure was that customers should not be in the store until 10:00 but could feed this back to Tesco.

 

On the delivery vehicle, officers noted that the application form only stated that it was a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) and so it could be assumed that this would be a 16.5 meter articulated lorry. The first roundabout had a generous carriageway width and was also used by vehicles arriving at the petrol station and buses. The second roundabout was the mini roundabout, and mini roundabouts were designed as such that they can be overridden. The vehicle would enter a largely empty car park because of the time in the morning. It was not foreseen that there would be any conflicts between vehicles that would raise undue concerns to the Highway Authority.

 

There was a history of appeals on this site. Unsuccessful appeals did also form part of the planning history. There was a store opening hours application submitted, which was refused and overturned at appeal.That particular application sought to vary Condition 1 which was the hours of opening. It was noted that the Committee needed to be mindful that any additional condition to prevent customers entering the store before 10:00 may conflict with Condition 1 which was subject to appeal.

 

It was noted that any practise of customers entering the store prior to 10:00 would be in breach of the opening hours.

 

The current application was for one single delivery in a different location to the previous application, which was upheld at appeal. It was also 34 metres away from the nearest residence (which was further away than the service yard was from the residence to the east). The application was for one delivery between the hours of 09:00 and 10:00, so significantly different to the previous application which was submitted, refused and upheld at appeal.

 

It was clarified that only newspapers were currently delivered on a Sunday.

 

Members noted the possibility of conditions around the size of the delivery vehicle and entry times for customers to the store. These would be contained within a management plan/ delivery plan.

 

Members suggested there would be difficulties in this proposal working. With Sunday trading laws, there was limited time to go to stores and so people would get there early as the store would be busy. Members further suggested that those who may need to get there earlier than others would be those who may need to use the disabled parking bays, which was where it was proposed that the delivery vehicle would park.

 

In addition, Members suggested that it would be difficult for a delivery vehicle to arrive, park, unload and depart within an hour. The Chair noted that it was possible to unload a delivery vehicle within 30 minutes.

 

The Legal Officer confirmed that planning consent could not be withdrawn if there were breaches, though enforcement action could be taken. The Legal Officer further noted that if Tesco did not comply with the conditions, there could be a Breach of Condition Notice issued, which was not appealable. This could only be overturned by a judicial review. A continued breach would be a criminal offence.

 

Members noted that although there was over 30 meters distance to the nearest residences, this was open space and so the noise would travel.

 

It was noted that a condition on time could only be implemented if this were an application for temporary planning consent.

 

Members noted the likelihood of this application going to appeal if it were refused. This could lead to the loss of existing conditions.

 

Members highlighted the potential danger of the delivery vehicle being in the car park at the same time as vulnerable adults and children and suggested a condition on portioning off the car park to separate the delivery vehicle from customer vehicles.

 

Officers noted their support for a condition requiring a servicing and delivery plan. This plan would not be signed off until officers were satisfied that potentially dangerous scenarios would not arise.

 

Members noted that the opening hours were for the store and not the car park.

 

Officers clarified that there was a condition in place relating to opening times. Adding a condition which prevented people entering the store would conflict with this condition. This meant that it would be necessary to vary the condition which was outside the scope of the current application.

 

Members asked if it were possible to add a condition for the gates of the car park to not be opened until the delivery vehicle arrived. It was noted that this would be a matter of land ownership which was outside the scope of this application.

 

It was re-iterated that any approval would be subject to conditions such as the submission of a delivery plan. If the delivery plan were deemed unacceptable, permission for the application would not be granted. The condition would be constructed in consultation with the Chair.

 

Officer’s recommendations, subject to the additional condition of a service delivery/ management plan, were moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved